The MRP is becoming a joke.  It is incoherent and inconsistent.

It needs to focus on behind the play sniping instead of trying to reinterpret umpiring decisions.

The charging of Fritsch last week & now May demonstrate it has lost the plot. In both cases the umpires were on the spot and made the right decision - free against Fritsch no 50m penalty or report and with May it was play on.

If the ump is on the spot & has adjudicated unless there are extenuating circumstances the MRP should just F Off.

 

Clearly the MRP isn’t in place to deal with the reality of the game, it’s to deal with the fallout after the games, particularly in the eyes of the media. If it’s seen more as a Public Relations tool and less as an adjudicator of the rules it begins to make more sense.

Was the action of May much different to what Hawkins did to him in pretty much the same spot?

2 hours ago, leave it to deever said:

Was the action of May much different to what Hawkins did to him in pretty much the same spot?

Exactly

Pity the club cant charge the Umpires from Sat Nights game with bringing the game into disrepute! Some of those Pro Swans decisions were outrageous!

 

Edited May 10, 20213 yr by picket fence

Agree wholeheartedly - the MRP was introduced to scrutinise behind the play thuggery not to second guess what the umpires see. 
That said, the Rampe highly dangerous tackle off the play must have been seen by the goal umpire who failed big time.  
And as I have said elsewhere, dumbass Christian seems more interested in cases highlighted by the comenteriate   than scrutinising what he should be watching. Just plain laziness on his part. 

Edited May 10, 20213 yr by monoccular

2 hours ago, picket fence said:

Pity the club cant charge the Umpires from Sat Nights game with bringing the game into disrepute! Some of those Pro Swans decisions were outrageous!

 

Buddy holding Tommcd was as clear as day.

Play on.

 

4 hours ago, leave it to deever said:

Was the action of May much different to what Hawkins did to him in pretty much the same spot?

Yes, it was. Hawkins was swinging his arm as he was being tackled and accidentally hit May in the head. May chose to bump Franklin and the elbow ended up hitting Franklin on the chin. It's because May chose to bump that makes it so different from the Hawkins incident.

I accept Franklin was hit by May's elbow. However, Franklin's over-reaction (or delayed reaction) should also have been scrutinised for staging.

10 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Yes, it was. Hawkins was swinging his arm as he was being tackled and accidentally hit May in the head. May chose to bump Franklin and the elbow ended up hitting Franklin on the chin. It's because May chose to bump that makes it so different from the Hawkins incident.

I accept Franklin was hit by May's elbow. However, Franklin's over-reaction (or delayed reaction) should also have been scrutinised for staging.

Still an accident but I appreciate the clarification. Tx.

Umps let the play go in the wet on Saturday night. That’s what a lot of fans want. I thought it wasn’t ideal, but the players knew where they stood. Better than paying everything.

MRP is a mess but there’s no simple solution. ‘Stick with the oringial umps call’ isn’t a good process, the umps miss a heap of on field stuff. They can’t see everything.

Every little incident is different so I don’t believe in the desire for consistency. One little change can make the difference between 2 weeks and nothing. It’s fine lines.

8 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Yes, it was. Hawkins was swinging his arm as he was being tackled and accidentally hit May in the head. May chose to bump Franklin and the elbow ended up hitting Franklin on the chin. It's because May chose to bump that makes it so different from the Hawkins incident.

I accept Franklin was hit by May's elbow. However, Franklin's over-reaction (or delayed reaction) should also have been scrutinised for staging.

So to clarify LDVC, if you are not looking you can swing your arms about causing mayhem including concussion and head injuries and that is OK. But if you look and fend off with a forearm to the biceps and it accidentally slips up a lubricated raising arm, glancing the chin with no injury it is not ok? Is that what you are saying? 

33 minutes ago, ManDee said:

So to clarify LDVC, if you are not looking you can swing your arms about causing mayhem including concussion and head injuries and that is OK. But if you look and fend off with a forearm to the biceps and it accidentally slips up a lubricated raising arm, glancing the chin with no injury it is not ok? Is that what you are saying? 

Hawkins wasn't swinging his arms about causing mayhem, though. Rather, Hawkins' arm swung around in the momentum of the tackle. What you are referring to is more like what Gaff did to Andrew Brayshaw. And that wasn't OK. 

The point about what May did was that he chose to bump and it has been clear for some years now that if a player chooses to bump and an accident happens with the bump connecting with the head, accident or not, the player who chose to bump is guilty. End of story. 

Edited May 10, 20213 yr by La Dee-vina Comedia

I watched at least a half of each game on Saturday, and all of ours.

In every game, the same things stood out. The epidemic of throwing continues. But now we see continually, players who as soon as they are tackled, throwing themselves to the ground to try to force a ball up. Usually they get it, no matter what happens in the melee on the ground. They can thrash around like a landed fish, all the while grasping the ball with both hands. The oppo can manhandle them, high, low, in the back. Occasionally the ump will award a holding the ball. But usually it's a safe bet for a ball up.  Once the guy with the ball is on the ground, it seems anything is allowed. Dragging it back in to the scrum, which used to be automatic holding the ball, doesn't count for anything any more.

(In the Essendon game, Hooker (I think it was) thought he was going to be tackled out near the boundary line. So he threw himself sideways onto the turf. He misjudged it completely ... the oppo player never got a finger on him. But he must have got points for style or degree of difficulty, coz the ump gave him a free kick.)

Then we see players who are tackled and blatantly just let the ball go. The rules say if the ball is forced out in a tackle it's play on. Otherwise, without prior, an attempt to dispose must be made. Letting the ball go is an attempt??

In the back is rarely paid. Player A has the ball. Player B tackles from behind and rides player A into the ground as hard as he can. Squishing him flat. Play on, or ball up. The only clear cut incidence we see is when player B tackles player A from behind and the ball is forced out in the tackle. Holding the ball with great drama every single time. Prior doesn't come into it.

Every game, these non-decisions over and over again. Then the decisions that are paid are a coin toss as to which way they'll go. The umpiring is again in crisis. Hocking got a lot of brownie points for his new standing the mark rule, which was actually just an enforcement of the old rule as it used to be, which the umps department let slide over several years. And the first couple of rounds seemed to be a big improvement in repairing the deterioration of policing short kicks & throwing the ball. But now it's back to how it was last year and the year before, which was bleeding awful.

The AFL have shown they can go scorched earth on deliberate out of bounds. Same with standing the mark. (Nearly with "natural arcs" -- they still show some leniency there.) Why not with all the rules? Throwing would be an easy one to fix. The only answer I can think of is that they don't really give a fig about the integrity of the game, but only about what the broadcasters want. They're happy with a bastardised version of the game provided there is fast play with lots of goals.

6 hours ago, leave it to deever said:

Was the action of May much different to what Hawkins did to him in pretty much the same spot?

Vastly different.

May's was accidental, soft and had no impact.

 

Hawkins....well he has form in flinging his elbows around.

38 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

 

Then we see players who are tackled and blatantly just let the ball go. The rules say if the ball is forced out in a tackle it's play on. Otherwise, without prior, an attempt to dispose must be made. Letting the ball go is an attempt??

 

I saw this happen many times on Saturday night. It was so often I wondered whether the Sydney team is coached to do so. I don't understand why the rules allow for a ball knocked out in a tackle to be called play on. Wouldn't it be simpler for all concerned (and expecially for the umpires) if a ball knocked out in the tackle is an incorrect disposal, just as dropping the ball when tackled should be?

6 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I saw this happen many times on Saturday night. It was so often I wondered whether the Sydney team is coached to do so. I don't understand why the rules allow for a ball knocked out in a tackle to be called play on. Wouldn't it be simpler for all concerned (and expecially for the umpires) if a ball knocked out in the tackle is an incorrect disposal, just as dropping the ball when tackled should be?

I can live with play on for a ball knocked out in a tackle. It's a reward for a good tackle -- the player has been dispossessed.

But letting go of the ball is incorrect disposal any which way you look at it. Without prior, an attempt to dispose must be made. Letting go is not an attempt. With prior, you HAVE to dispose legally. It's quite unbelievable that this slack [censored] is permitted. It wouldn't be in any other sport I can think of.

18 hours ago, Mazer Rackham said:

I can live with play on for a ball knocked out in a tackle. It's a reward for a good tackle -- the player has been dispossessed.

But letting go of the ball is incorrect disposal any which way you look at it. Without prior, an attempt to dispose must be made. Letting go is not an attempt. With prior, you HAVE to dispose legally. It's quite unbelievable that this slack [censored] is permitted. It wouldn't be in any other sport I can think of.

I understand your point. However, I think one of the blights on the game is inconsistent interpretations by umpires. I don't blame the umpires, though. I blame the AFL for having complicated rules. It would be much simpler if a free kick was paid for incorrect disposal if a player has had a prior opportunity to dispose of the ball and is correctly tackled and doesn't dispose of the ball correctly by hand or foot. That would mean a free kick would be paid to the tackler if the ball is not disposed of at all, if it is knocked free in the tackle or if it is dropped by the player.

3 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I understand your point. However, I think one of the blights on the game is inconsistent interpretations by umpires. I don't blame the umpires, though. I blame the AFL for having complicated rules. It would be much simpler if a free kick was paid for incorrect disposal if a player has had a prior opportunity to dispose of the ball and is correctly tackled and doesn't dispose of the ball correctly by hand or foot. That would mean a free kick would be paid to the tackler if the ball is not disposed of at all, if it is knocked free in the tackle or if it is dropped by the player.

Exactly La Dee  that's the rule! It not difficult to adjudicate. Even I can see it from the bleechers when it happens.

I think the AFL encourage these grey area interpretations from the umpires